Appeal No. 1998-1623
Application 08/433,625
ground of rejection on the basis of that
claim alone unless a statement is included
that the claims of the group do not stand
or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant
explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable.
Merely pointing out differences in what the
claims cover is not an argument as to why
the claims are separately patentable.
We will, thereby, consider the Appellants' claims 20, 23, 24,
26 and 28 as standing or falling together and we will treat
claim 20 as a representative claim of that group.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under 35
U.S.C. 102 can be found only if the prior art reference
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner rejects Appellants' claim 20 by relying on
Brady's second embodiment shown in Figure 3. In particular,
the Examiner points to column 7, lines 35-68, and column 8,
lines
1-14. The Examiner argues that Brady teaches a method for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007